Draft XRPL Intent Transaction

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this with the explicit non-actions 'never submits, signs, or moves funds.' It further discloses cost ('$0.001 USDC or 1000 drops XRP'), which is not present in annotations or schema. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four tight sentences: the core action, a usage directive with explicit exclusions, alternatives, and pricing. Every sentence earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded before the routing guidance. No redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns (skeleton plus failure codes), when to use it, what it won't do, alternatives, and cost. There is no missing information that would prevent correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (intent, language) are already described in the input schema. The description merely restates the allowed intent values and does not add new information about parameter formats, defaults, or edge cases. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Draft') and resource ('typed xrpl.js / xrpl-py skeleton') and narrows scope to payment/trustline/rlusd/channel. It explicitly contrasts itself with fetch_working_example (full script) and review_framework_code (linting), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states exactly when to use the tool ('Use when building an XRPL tx') and what it never does ('never submits, signs, or moves funds'). It also names the alternatives and their purpose: 'Prefer fetch_working_example for a full script and review_framework_code to lint Amount/address mistakes.' No ambiguity remains.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.